Reaction Time and Other Ref Stuff

[AgSurfer]

I’ve seen a lot of internet discussions about that takedown that was overturned in Sealy’s match last Sunday. It seems that the ref allowed for “reaction time” as justification for calling no TD

Can someone please explain exactly how “reaction time” is supposed to be applied because I’m starting to think it’s a really bad idea. Just like stalling, there doesn’t seem to be complete consistency on when it is called.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

The application is problematic because the definition in the NCAA Rules Book is no help at all: "Reaction time is provided in all situations except for locked hands calls down on the mat. Reaction time is determined by each individual referee and is described only as a period of time that is not instantaneous." Considering the NCAA supposedly wants to reward offense, I think reaction time should be viewed with an eye toward favoring the wrestler making the offensive move.

Edit: In 50/50-type scrambles I am all for giving generous reaction time, but in a situation like Sealey's I think the overturn was egregious.

 

[El-Jefe]

It's a no-win situation:
- Reaction time is applied inconsistently, as we saw last weekend.
- No reaction time, well, remember the rear standing takedown mess we endured for a few years?

No reaction time, applied broadly, would also lead to bunches of controversial T3 + R2 calls, and probably lots of extra challenges. Yay!

IMO this comes down to ref training. I'd imagine this error will be part of next offseason's ref training videos.

The other thing about the Sealey takedown was: the ref was in great position to see the sequence as-is, and initially made the right call. I wonder what he saw from a different angle (underneath/in front of Kraisser) on replay. Can't imagine what it would've been to merit overturning the other call, but am curious.

 

[DeadHead11]

There are too many gray areas in folk and free. Allows both sides to feel either wronged or vindicated based on reasonable people (in some cases) seeing the same situation. Moreso in free but maybe I just don’t have a good enough grasp of the rules…especially determining who initiated exposure

 

[billrag]

Nothing's perfect and you'll always be able to pick apart certain rules and find individual instances where they were unfair even when applied properly. That said, if we're still talking about Joe Sealey's takedown, there could be NO definition of reaction time that wouldn't allow that it was in fact a legit takedown. I mean, why not say that reaction times is up to and including anything that happens during a 24-hour period?

I have almost zero doubt that the PSU coaches raised this issue with the Big Ten, but does the Big Ten ever publicly comment or correct a blown call (and by "correcting" the call, I mean pointing out that the decision to overturn was the wrong one or by possibly censuring the ref somehow)?

 

[Rhino80]

Reaction time should not be a discussion at all with the Sealy takedown. As a ref you cannot give the defending wrestler time to come off one hip, roll back up to your base, take your overhook and rotate your body to slide that overhook down into a whizzer. That is beyond reaction time in any circumstance. Just a plain bad call, no need to invent an excuse for it. Sealy had control, defending wrestler had to perform several actions over several seconds to neutralize that control, which by definition is a takedown.

 

[AgSurfer]

Nothing's perfect and you'll always be able to pick apart certain rules and find individual instances where they were unfair even when applied properly. That said, if we're still talking about Joe Sealey's takedown, there could be NO definition of reaction time that wouldn't allow that it was in fact a legit takedown. I mean, why not say that reaction times is up to and including anything that happens during a 24-hour period?

I have almost zero doubt that the PSU coaches raised this issue with the Big Ten, but does the Big Ten ever publicly comment or correct a blown call (and by "correcting" the call, I mean pointing out that the decision to overturn was the wrong one or by possibly censuring the ref somehow)?

It would help if the ref or ref organization (whatever they are called in the NCAA) would offer a public explanation of why the refs made the decision. We’re left to speculation on message boards and social media. I’ve seen the same discussions on Facebook.

About 10 years ago, I had a situation where a HS ref made a call that I strongly disagreed with. However, afterwards I asked him about it and he explained exactly why he made the call the way he did. I wouldn’t have called it that way, but I was convinced that he had made his best effort to make the right decision and had interpreted what we both saw a little differently. It was a good lesson for me about how perception can vary between different people. The good part about that story is that I made a new friend too!

Being a ref is not easy and it’s not for everyone. You have to think very quickly and be decisive in an atmosphere where you can have hundreds or even thousands of people watching how you react. It’s definitely not something I’ve ever wanted to do and I’ve learned to have a lot of respect for the guys who are willing to do it.

 

[tullfan68]

I’ve seen a lot of internet discussions about that takedown that was overturned in Sealy’s match last Sunday. It seems that the ref allowed for “reaction time” as justification for calling no TD

Can someone please explain exactly how “reaction time” is supposed to be applied because I’m starting to think it’s a really bad idea. Just like stalling, there doesn’t seem to be complete consistency on when it is called.

reaction time 6 seconds!LOL

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Reaction time should not be a discussion at all with the Sealy takedown. As a ref you cannot give the defending wrestler time to come off one hip, roll back up to your base, take your overhook and rotate your body to slide that overhook down into a whizzer. That is beyond reaction time in any circumstance. Just a plain bad call, no need to invent an excuse for it. Sealy had control, defending wrestler had to perform several actions over several seconds to neutralize that control, which by definition is a takedown.

Agreed, but in addition, doesn't the Rulebook say that when on the edge the defensive wrestler is only entitled to "reaction time" when maintaining two points of contact? Once he hit the mat flat partially out-of-bounds, he doesn't get "reaction time" (rule written that way so you're not giving a wrestler additional time for the sole purpose of attempting to flee the mat).

It was a takedown regardless of situation, but awarding "reaction time" in this situation was especially egregious as it happened on the edge and Kraisser landed partially OB with infinite points of contact completely flat.